All I said was that the antenna will be redesigned, or tweaked (read my original post). I don't have proof yet, as we don't know how the new iPhone will look in the end, but the fact remains that I told you so, and I can repeat it as many times as I like. There is a chance that eventually I will have been wrong all along, the design will be unchanged, and I will look like a fool. I am taking this chance.
Cheers.
Given that, as has been pointed out endless times, they have "tweaked" the antenna in every new iPhone, you have nearly a 100% chance of being correct. That should give you about the same level of satisfaction as predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow and then telling everyone, "I told you so!"
Apple leaves the iPhone4 design alone post-antennagate, we get the "Apple refuses to admit a flaw" crowd.
Apple does subtle redesigns that include the re-placement of the bands, we get the "See!! We were right all along!!!" crowd.
Apple comes out with a totally different looking iP5 with nothing cosmetically similar to the iP4, we'll certainly get the "See, iP4 was a total failure all along!!!" crowd.
You forgot the "There was nothing wrong, Apple just did it to shut up the critics" crowd.
Quote:
These are evolutionary changes. Nothing more, nothing less. Apple is within its right to improve its products better than their previous generations.
I suggest buying thicker tinfoil.
But what about the "iPhone is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 3G is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 3GS is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 4 is perfect" crowd?
By improving iPhones "better than their previous generations", what does that mean for the "perfection" of the previous iPhones?
I thought the placement of the junction band on the lower left-hand corner (looking straight at the phone) was the weak spot? If so, it's still there, unless that one got switched to an aesthetic band.
What am I missing?
My thought exactly when I saw the pictures. I was hoping the the bumper would be "built in" as it were. That would change up the design a bit and stave off the antenna issue discussions.
Does anyone know what kind of antenna is required for true 4G LTE reception, and whether an antenna can be shared with other reception antennas (GSM, CDMA, GPS, WiFi, BlueTouth etc)?
I am not an engineer, but why can't the software allow sharing of multiple antennas, and switch to other antenna segments when it may be called for (as in bridging the gap with your fingers)? (I know certain antennas are based on length and wavelength optimization, etc, but just wondered about this). Or - does this negate the supposed health "advantage" or requiring the cellphone antenna to be isolated to the bottom of the phone?
(I misplaced my "Cellphone antennas for Dummies" book, but then again, so did all the Apple engineers involved with the original iP4 design.)
I thought the placement of the junction band on the lower left-hand corner (looking straight at the phone) was the weak spot? If so, it's still there, unless that one got switched to an aesthetic band.
What am I missing?
It could either be aesthetic, the strip on the left could be non-functional or the entire bottom part of the band could be the 3G antenna. I posted a mockup of what I thought they should do a little while ago:
By moving the gaps up near the top of the phone, they are away from your touch. The cellular part goes near the bottom away from your head to comply with regulations. Obvious really but whether the design would permit that remained to be seen.
That would of course make the wifi antenna a fair bit smaller but I doubt it would make much difference unless you hold it in landscape while gaming but you wouldn't cover it too much.
Whatever they've done with the antenna, the following is obvious:
- they knew there was an issue with the antenna, which is why they held the conference
- they made it clear they were going to find a solution
- they do not want to put out the new model with the exact same issue, that would be silly as people would be looking for the flaw
I fully expected a redesigned antenna and I don't think it's a huge deal. The iPhone 4 didn't show significant issues in the real world.
I'm a little disappointed by the rest of the shape as it means the same small screen and bezel size. I'd have liked a capacitive button or bezel and a taller display.
I'm a little disappointed by the rest of the shape as it means the same small screen and bezel size. I'd have liked a capacitive button or bezel and a taller display.
That means a new SDK for new apps. This means fragmentation so it needs to be planned well. While I think they will release a different size iPhone model I don?t think they will do it just yet. I think a CDMA-based iPhone will be enough of a draw to short component supplies sufficiently this year. Maybe next year we can expect a 4.x? iPhone with new SDK and App Store. This could also be the model that first comes with LTE.
I've never liked the 'G terminology and never used it. I don't know why people keep on using it. Why not call the iPhone X-Gen by it's name? Why would apple call the new iPhone the 4GS or something? Users wouldn't understand.
Perceptive types however, will note that the whole area where the "problem" supposedly was with iPhone 4 has been left exactly the same and that the antennas are still external to the device in exactly the same manner.
I don't think you can make that statement. Just because there is still a gap there doesn't mean the two strips of metal on either side of the gap are the same antennas. I'm a little unclear from the previous posts if there are currently two or three strips of metal around the current iPhone. One poster claims one of the the gaps isn't really a gap, but just there for symmetry.
However, if there are currently three metal areas, that means that at at least one gap, the two antennas are adjacent. This is the problem gap. The other two gaps are separated by a non-antenna strip of metal. But if you then take that non-antenna piece and divide it in two and use each half to separate both ends of both antennas, then you no longer have the two antennas adjacent to each other where bridging the gap causes the so-called issue. Now, bridging the gap only bridges an antenna to a non-antenna surface, not antenna to antenna coupling as in the current design.
Bottom line: Just because there is still a gap in the same location, you don't know if the two metal surfaces on either side of that gap serve the same function as the current design.
To add to the confusion, who's to say what they got their hands on was a proto of the iphone 4. Apple goes through various design iteration and this just could be one of them.
Or if it is the VZ phone then that means no facetime for VZ customer. so what they an Apple decision of a VZ decision, either way the VZ customers could be getting less features than the run of the world
That occurred to me as well. These could be genuine Apple parts and still not have anything to do with the iPhone 5.
By improving iPhones "better than their previous generations", what does that mean for the "perfection" of the previous iPhones?
What about them? They don't exist, except in the minds of ever cranky self-appointed "fan boy police."
The "iPhone is really great" crowd? Sure. The "not really seeing a problem with the antenna" crowd? You bet. But claiming that some substantial number of people are flatly calling each iteration of the iPhone "perfect" is a pretty shabby strawman.
Especially when compared to the actual fair numbers of people determined to fault Apple at every turn, many of them hanging around hereabouts.
I don't think you can make that statement. Just because there is still a gap there doesn't mean the two strips of metal on either side of the gap are the same antennas. I'm a little unclear from the previous posts if there are currently two or three strips of metal around the current iPhone. One poster claims one of the the gaps isn't really a gap, but just there for symmetry.
However, if there are currently three metal areas, that means that at at least one gap, the two antennas are adjacent. This is the problem gap. The other two gaps are separated by a non-antenna strip of metal. But if you then take that non-antenna piece and divide it in two and use each half to separate both ends of both antennas, then you no longer have the two antennas adjacent to each other where bridging the gap causes the so-called issue. Now, bridging the gap only bridges an antenna to a non-antenna surface, not antenna to antenna coupling as in the current design.
Bottom line: Just because there is still a gap in the same location, you don't know if the two metal surfaces on either side of that gap serve the same function as the current design.
Mind the Gap!
The iPhone 4 antenna is indeed only in two pieces and one of the "gaps" is purely aesthetic. From examining the video of this alleged redesign I'd say the new model is also in two pieces but now has two fake "gaps" rather than one. Personally I think it's more likely that this is from an early prototype of the iPhone 4 than a new model.
What about them? They don't exist, except in the minds of ever cranky self-appointed "fan boy police."
The "iPhone is really great" crowd? Sure. The "not really seeing a problem with the antenna" crowd? You bet. But claiming that some substantial number of people are flatting calling each iteration of the iPhone "perfect" is a pretty shabby strawman.
Especially when compared to the actual fair numbers of people determined to fault Apple at every turn, many of them hanging around hereabouts.
Totally agree.
I have never, ever heard anyone - even the hardcore iFanboys - ever call any iteration of the iPhone "perfect". It is not perfect. Nothing ever is, except maybe a flawless diamond.
So the argument the individual is trying blow-smoke with is complete rubbish.
The way the critics are coming out is simply a validation that they were wrong and are now trying to save face.
I personally love the current iP4 design. Obviously, many consumers think the same way as the demand for the iP4 sends a clear signal to Apple that they have another hit product. I expect every iteration of their phone to have some kind of update / enhancement / tweak to it since they are still trying to reach that never-attainable "perfection" bar. Kudos to them for trying.
Where were the other phone manufacturers all this time? Here they are (now) making cheap, plastic garbage with a now-becomming-generic smartphone OS that is already showing the signs of a commodity OS with the same problems as a certain desktop OS. Folks have the nerve to eschew Apple for making a phone that may be susceptible to scratching when shot out of a cannon. Puuhleez!
I predict that the iPhone 10 will not have any resemblance to the current iP4. I can quote myself on that in 10 years and too say "I told you so!!"
It seems clear that they are addressing the antenna issues which is great,
Except that it s not clear at all. These photos could be totally fake.
And keep in mind that Apple has taken the stance that there is no issue with the antenna design. They say the problem is ATT reception quality and hit greedy media
So the only way to 'address' that is to dump ATT and get a restraint order on the media.
I predict that the iPhone 10 will not have any resemblance to the current iP4. I can quote myself on that in 10 years and too say "I told you so!!"
</rant>
Information theory will tell you that the value of a prediction is higher if it goes against the odds. It is easy to predict that 6 generations from now the changes will be substantial. Evolution of the design will gradually lead to accumulation of changes and such a prediction is a sure bet, that's why it is not interesting.
This is clear to some here, and that's why solipsism claimed that my prediction of the antenna design change is trivial, and anyone could have made it based on the expected evolution of the devices that we can almost take for granted. Fair enough, however I would still argue that even though we expect to see some design changes in the next iPhone, we know that not everything will be changed. So to single out the antenna has some merit. In contrast, I am not claiming that the screen resolution will change or that the cameras will change much, nor am I claiming that at least few of the specs will change without specifying which ones. That would obviously be a trivial prediction, and thus devoid of any value, just like yours about iPhone 10 (although I admit that simply predicting there will be an iPhone 10 is bold enough
Comments
All I said was that the antenna will be redesigned, or tweaked (read my original post). I don't have proof yet, as we don't know how the new iPhone will look in the end, but the fact remains that I told you so, and I can repeat it as many times as I like. There is a chance that eventually I will have been wrong all along, the design will be unchanged, and I will look like a fool. I am taking this chance.
Cheers.
Given that, as has been pointed out endless times, they have "tweaked" the antenna in every new iPhone, you have nearly a 100% chance of being correct. That should give you about the same level of satisfaction as predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow and then telling everyone, "I told you so!"
Jeesh... they're coming out of the woodwork now.
Apple leaves the iPhone4 design alone post-antennagate, we get the "Apple refuses to admit a flaw" crowd.
Apple does subtle redesigns that include the re-placement of the bands, we get the "See!! We were right all along!!!" crowd.
Apple comes out with a totally different looking iP5 with nothing cosmetically similar to the iP4, we'll certainly get the "See, iP4 was a total failure all along!!!" crowd.
You forgot the "There was nothing wrong, Apple just did it to shut up the critics" crowd.
These are evolutionary changes. Nothing more, nothing less. Apple is within its right to improve its products better than their previous generations.
I suggest buying thicker tinfoil.
But what about the "iPhone is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 3G is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 3GS is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 4 is perfect" crowd?
By improving iPhones "better than their previous generations", what does that mean for the "perfection" of the previous iPhones?
But what about the "iPhone is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 3G is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 3GS is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 4 is perfect" crowd?
By improving iPhones "better than their previous generations", what does that mean for the "perfection" of the previous iPhones?
That 'perfection' is relative.
I thought the placement of the junction band on the lower left-hand corner (looking straight at the phone) was the weak spot? If so, it's still there, unless that one got switched to an aesthetic band.
What am I missing?
My thought exactly when I saw the pictures. I was hoping the the bumper would be "built in" as it were. That would change up the design a bit and stave off the antenna issue discussions.
I am not an engineer, but why can't the software allow sharing of multiple antennas, and switch to other antenna segments when it may be called for (as in bridging the gap with your fingers)? (I know certain antennas are based on length and wavelength optimization, etc, but just wondered about this). Or - does this negate the supposed health "advantage" or requiring the cellphone antenna to be isolated to the bottom of the phone?
(I misplaced my "Cellphone antennas for Dummies" book, but then again, so did all the Apple engineers involved with the original iP4 design.)
I thought the placement of the junction band on the lower left-hand corner (looking straight at the phone) was the weak spot? If so, it's still there, unless that one got switched to an aesthetic band.
What am I missing?
It could either be aesthetic, the strip on the left could be non-functional or the entire bottom part of the band could be the 3G antenna. I posted a mockup of what I thought they should do a little while ago:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...02&postcount=9
By moving the gaps up near the top of the phone, they are away from your touch. The cellular part goes near the bottom away from your head to comply with regulations. Obvious really but whether the design would permit that remained to be seen.
That would of course make the wifi antenna a fair bit smaller but I doubt it would make much difference unless you hold it in landscape while gaming but you wouldn't cover it too much.
Whatever they've done with the antenna, the following is obvious:
- they knew there was an issue with the antenna, which is why they held the conference
- they made it clear they were going to find a solution
- they do not want to put out the new model with the exact same issue, that would be silly as people would be looking for the flaw
I fully expected a redesigned antenna and I don't think it's a huge deal. The iPhone 4 didn't show significant issues in the real world.
I'm a little disappointed by the rest of the shape as it means the same small screen and bezel size. I'd have liked a capacitive button or bezel and a taller display.
I'm a little disappointed by the rest of the shape as it means the same small screen and bezel size. I'd have liked a capacitive button or bezel and a taller display.
That means a new SDK for new apps. This means fragmentation so it needs to be planned well. While I think they will release a different size iPhone model I don?t think they will do it just yet. I think a CDMA-based iPhone will be enough of a draw to short component supplies sufficiently this year. Maybe next year we can expect a 4.x? iPhone with new SDK and App Store. This could also be the model that first comes with LTE.
I've never liked the 'G terminology and never used it. I don't know why people keep on using it. Why not call the iPhone X-Gen by it's name? Why would apple call the new iPhone the 4GS or something? Users wouldn't understand.
iPhone 4 Pro Extreme
I am so getting one of these...
Perceptive types however, will note that the whole area where the "problem" supposedly was with iPhone 4 has been left exactly the same and that the antennas are still external to the device in exactly the same manner.
I don't think you can make that statement. Just because there is still a gap there doesn't mean the two strips of metal on either side of the gap are the same antennas. I'm a little unclear from the previous posts if there are currently two or three strips of metal around the current iPhone. One poster claims one of the the gaps isn't really a gap, but just there for symmetry.
However, if there are currently three metal areas, that means that at at least one gap, the two antennas are adjacent. This is the problem gap. The other two gaps are separated by a non-antenna strip of metal. But if you then take that non-antenna piece and divide it in two and use each half to separate both ends of both antennas, then you no longer have the two antennas adjacent to each other where bridging the gap causes the so-called issue. Now, bridging the gap only bridges an antenna to a non-antenna surface, not antenna to antenna coupling as in the current design.
Bottom line: Just because there is still a gap in the same location, you don't know if the two metal surfaces on either side of that gap serve the same function as the current design.
Mind the Gap!
Considering Photoshop is around these photos are poor at best.
I wouldn't put to much credability in these
But there is fairly convincing video as well, with a number of very plausible internal design changes.
To add to the confusion, who's to say what they got their hands on was a proto of the iphone 4. Apple goes through various design iteration and this just could be one of them.
Or if it is the VZ phone then that means no facetime for VZ customer. so what they an Apple decision of a VZ decision, either way the VZ customers could be getting less features than the run of the world
That occurred to me as well. These could be genuine Apple parts and still not have anything to do with the iPhone 5.
But what about the "iPhone is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 3G is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 3GS is perfect" crowd?
And the "iPhone 4 is perfect" crowd?
By improving iPhones "better than their previous generations", what does that mean for the "perfection" of the previous iPhones?
What about them? They don't exist, except in the minds of ever cranky self-appointed "fan boy police."
The "iPhone is really great" crowd? Sure. The "not really seeing a problem with the antenna" crowd? You bet. But claiming that some substantial number of people are flatly calling each iteration of the iPhone "perfect" is a pretty shabby strawman.
Especially when compared to the actual fair numbers of people determined to fault Apple at every turn, many of them hanging around hereabouts.
So the 5th gen iPhone is going to look like the 4th gen, basically? I don't think.
Why not? The 3G and the 3GS looked exactly alike. Do you think its easy redesigning the phone every year?
I don't think you can make that statement. Just because there is still a gap there doesn't mean the two strips of metal on either side of the gap are the same antennas. I'm a little unclear from the previous posts if there are currently two or three strips of metal around the current iPhone. One poster claims one of the the gaps isn't really a gap, but just there for symmetry.
However, if there are currently three metal areas, that means that at at least one gap, the two antennas are adjacent. This is the problem gap. The other two gaps are separated by a non-antenna strip of metal. But if you then take that non-antenna piece and divide it in two and use each half to separate both ends of both antennas, then you no longer have the two antennas adjacent to each other where bridging the gap causes the so-called issue. Now, bridging the gap only bridges an antenna to a non-antenna surface, not antenna to antenna coupling as in the current design.
Bottom line: Just because there is still a gap in the same location, you don't know if the two metal surfaces on either side of that gap serve the same function as the current design.
Mind the Gap!
The iPhone 4 antenna is indeed only in two pieces and one of the "gaps" is purely aesthetic. From examining the video of this alleged redesign I'd say the new model is also in two pieces but now has two fake "gaps" rather than one. Personally I think it's more likely that this is from an early prototype of the iPhone 4 than a new model.
What about them? They don't exist, except in the minds of ever cranky self-appointed "fan boy police."
The "iPhone is really great" crowd? Sure. The "not really seeing a problem with the antenna" crowd? You bet. But claiming that some substantial number of people are flatting calling each iteration of the iPhone "perfect" is a pretty shabby strawman.
Especially when compared to the actual fair numbers of people determined to fault Apple at every turn, many of them hanging around hereabouts.
Totally agree.
I have never, ever heard anyone - even the hardcore iFanboys - ever call any iteration of the iPhone "perfect". It is not perfect. Nothing ever is, except maybe a flawless diamond.
So the argument the individual is trying blow-smoke with is complete rubbish.
The way the critics are coming out is simply a validation that they were wrong and are now trying to save face.
I personally love the current iP4 design. Obviously, many consumers think the same way as the demand for the iP4 sends a clear signal to Apple that they have another hit product. I expect every iteration of their phone to have some kind of update / enhancement / tweak to it since they are still trying to reach that never-attainable "perfection" bar. Kudos to them for trying.
Where were the other phone manufacturers all this time? Here they are (now) making cheap, plastic garbage with a now-becomming-generic smartphone OS that is already showing the signs of a commodity OS with the same problems as a certain desktop OS. Folks have the nerve to eschew Apple for making a phone that may be susceptible to scratching when shot out of a cannon. Puuhleez!
I predict that the iPhone 10 will not have any resemblance to the current iP4. I can quote myself on that in 10 years and too say "I told you so!!"
</rant>
I predict that the iPhone 10 will not have any resemblance to the current iP4. I can quote myself on that in 10 years and too say "I told you so!!?
This is where some jackass (I guess that?s me
It seems clear that they are addressing the antenna issues which is great,
Except that it s not clear at all. These photos could be totally fake.
And keep in mind that Apple has taken the stance that there is no issue with the antenna design. They say the problem is ATT reception quality and hit greedy media
So the only way to 'address' that is to dump ATT and get a restraint order on the media.
...
I predict that the iPhone 10 will not have any resemblance to the current iP4. I can quote myself on that in 10 years and too say "I told you so!!"
</rant>
Information theory will tell you that the value of a prediction is higher if it goes against the odds. It is easy to predict that 6 generations from now the changes will be substantial. Evolution of the design will gradually lead to accumulation of changes and such a prediction is a sure bet, that's why it is not interesting.
This is clear to some here, and that's why solipsism claimed that my prediction of the antenna design change is trivial, and anyone could have made it based on the expected evolution of the devices that we can almost take for granted. Fair enough, however I would still argue that even though we expect to see some design changes in the next iPhone, we know that not everything will be changed. So to single out the antenna has some merit. In contrast, I am not claiming that the screen resolution will change or that the cameras will change much, nor am I claiming that at least few of the specs will change without specifying which ones. That would obviously be a trivial prediction, and thus devoid of any value, just like yours about iPhone 10 (although I admit that simply predicting there will be an iPhone 10 is bold enough
While CDMA does not use a SIM card, Verizon's high-speed 4G network does.
CDMA can use a SIM called R-UIM. China Unicom uses them.